Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.2 1B

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 113× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #3 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

19.9

Rank #349 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 92.4 to 9.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B.
  • Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 60K.
  • Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index68.519.9
Released2026-09-222024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M60K
Max output128K54K
Input $ / M tokens$4$0.027
Output $ / M tokens$20$0.20
Results tracked3522

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1), Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Coding15451071
FrontierCode54.4%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1820—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—8.2%
MirrorCode77.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete—11.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13), Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
APEX-Agents73.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—10.8%
BALROG—6.6%
GDP.pdf30.6%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2), Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Hard Prompts15451044
ARC-AGI-292.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—101.95

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2), Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%0.6%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math—1086

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
GPQA Diamond90.6%23.9%
LMArena Expert15641007
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2), Llama 3.2 1B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English1513973
LMArena Chinese1572958
LMArena Russian1532941
LMArena German—1014

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following15351031

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query15401050

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text15181055
LMArena Creative Writing15381033
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050200
LMArena Multi-Turn15201030

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 113× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.2 1B?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.2 1B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper